1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3641 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Cost to Treasury of plan to offset gas price increases.

Mr. Smith — 3641

Water source for Port Simpson cannery. Mr. Chabot — 3643

Purchase of Esquimalt warehouse. Mr. Morrison — 3643

Accident on 401 freeway. Mr. Curtis — 3643

Dairy and hog producers income assistance programmes.

Mrs. Jordan — 3643

Bella Coola–Roscoe Bay road. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3643

Road fund diversions to assist Plateau Mills.

Mr. Chabot — 3644

Shawnigan Lake development. Hon. R.A. Williams — 3644

Land-use permits for Crown land. Hon. R.A. Williams — 3644

Skagit Valley logging. Hon. R.A. Williams — 3644

Real property Tax Deferment Act (Bill 16).

Report and third reading — 3645

Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 142). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3645

Pharmacy Act (Bill 106).

Committee, report and third reading — 3645

Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, 1,974

(Bill

95).

Committee, report and third reading — 3646

College Pension Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 96).

Committee, report and third reading — 3646

Teachers' Pension Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 97).

Committee, report and third reading — 3646

Municipal Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 98).

Committee, report and third reading — 3646

Trade Practices Act (Bill 126). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3646

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3646

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3647

section 9.

Mrs. Jordan — 3647

Hon. Ms. Young — 3647

Amendment to

section 13.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3647

Amendment to

section 14.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3647

Amendment to

section 15.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3648

Amendment to

section 16.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3648

Mrs. Jordan — 3648

Mr. Gibson — 3648

Amendment to

section 17.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3648

Amendment to

section 18.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3648

Amendment to

section 19.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3648

Amendment to

section 20.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3648

Amendments to

section 28.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3649

Amendment to

section 29.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3649

Amendment to

section 30.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3649

Report stage — 3649

Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development (British

Columbia)

Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 139).

Committee, report and third reading — 3649

Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 100).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3649

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1974. Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3650

Mr. Smith — 3650

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3651

Mr. Cummings — 3652

Mr. Gardom — 3652

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3653

Committee of Supply:

Department of Transport and Communications estimates.

On vote 235.

Mr. McClelland — 3654

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3655

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3656

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3659

Mr. Curtis — 3661

Mr. Fraser — 3662

Mr. Morrison — 3664

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3664

Mr. Gardom — 3664

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3665

Mr. Fraser — 3666

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3667

Mr. Gardom — 3667

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3668

Mr. Fraser — 3669

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3669

Point of order

Suspension of Mr. D.A. Anderson from service of the

House — 3672

Routine proceedings

Mr. Gardom — 3673

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3673

Mr. Gibson — 3673

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3674

Mr. Gardom — 3674

Mr. Curtis — 3674

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3675

Mr. Gibson — 3675

Institute of Technology (British Columbia) Act (Bill

134).

Hon. Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction and first reading — 3678

Forest Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 117). Hon. R.A.

Williams.

Introduction and first reading — 3678

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 11). Hon. Mr.

Barrett.

Discharge order of third reading — 3678

Logging Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 149).

Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 3678

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 102). Hon. Mr.

Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 3678

MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, on your left up in

the gallery there are students from the class on government and

history at Mission Senior Secondary School with their teacher,

Ellen Pierce. I'd like the House to recognize them.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, this is a good

day for Langley. We had a large class of students from Simonds

Elementary School in Langley today. Also seated in the gallery

are two very hard workers in the Langley community, Mr. &

Mrs. Rudy Coleman. I'd like the House to make them very

welcome.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

COST TO TREASURY OF PLAN TO

OFFSET GAS PRICE INCREASES

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Finance, the Premier of the province. On the

weekend, while the rest of us were in our places here in the

House, the Premier made an announcement concerning the fact

that he would be introducing a programme to offset the price

increase of gasoline to the motorists of the Province of

British Columbia. Would the Premier give an indication as to

how much the rebate will be and what it will cost the

provincial Treasury?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'm almost hesitant

to answer since, as I understand it, in my absence the

opposition was concerned about attendance here in the House.

I'd like your advice as to whether or not I should answer

questions when only 40 per cent of the Liberal Party are here.

I understand they complained bitterly about the attendance.

Only 50 per cent of the Tories are here and 70 per cent of the

Socreds.

With so many Members absent, before I answer I'd like the

assurance of the opposition Members, because I know they're so

concerned about these matters, that they will take the answers

back to their Members who are sorely missed by the rest of

us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that the previous

objection or the present objection are well sustained.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't want to embarrass anybody,

Mr. Speaker, but I thought someone made a big argument about absence in

the House.

Now that I am here and the official Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) is not here this week….

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us a few "ifs" and "buts."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if you want to interrupt, I won't be

able to answer.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I don't want a political

speech; I want some answers — straightforward answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did make an

announcement that there would be a new formula for automobile

insurance in the Province of British Columbia. I've instructed

the ICBC, as Minister of Finance, to come up with the figures

to give us the cost of the new formula that we've agreed in

concept to go forward with: that is, for the automobile user in

this province to offset the increase in the price of gasoline

rather than remove or reduce the gasoline tax, which would

benefit non-British Columbians.

We believe that tourists and non-residents should pay their

fair share. We have come up with a formula and we've agreed in

concept, to have a flat rating system, which would ideally

bring every automobile insurance premium down in the Province

of British Columbia. There are no rebates.

It means that the new rating system will go into effect next

premium year, which is March of 1975.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): In the light of the Minister

of Transport and Communications' (Hon. Mr. Strachan) statement:

"…but the automobile plan legislation is specifically

established as a separate and distinct account for all

automobile insurance business; only auto insurance premiums,

income from investment and other auto insurance generated

revenues will go into the Autoplan account, and the only money

that can come out of that account is for the payment of claims"

and his statement "…no tax dollars in, no surplus out," does the

absence of this Minister indicate that as he

has so identified with some other policy, he's been asked to

resign and take on the job of Agent-General in London?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, let me assure you that the

Minister will be back, and we hope to get on to his estimates

upon his return at approximately 3 o'clock.

[ Page 3642 ]

The Minister made that statement before we were faced with

major increases in the price of gasoline. Now we are concerned

about the total cost of motoring.

With the price increase in gasoline, we decided, rather than

allow non-residents to escape their fair share of gasoline tax,

that we move to another formula of financing automobile

insurance.

The Minister is the one who came to me with this proposal,

pointing out that this was a fairer way to go. Having heard the

Minister's concepts, we agreed, and that is the direction on

which the Minister has been instructed. Rather than resign,

that Minister should be honoured by every motorist for bringing

about this programme.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary. In view of the

claim by the Minister of Transport and Communications that the

legislation this House passed does not permit the use of tax

revenues for such a purpose, may I ask when the Minister of

Finance intends to bring in amending legislation to the effect

of the plan in Kamloops?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if there are necessary

amendments, we will bring them in this session to enable the

Minister to go ahead. On the other hand, we can bring them in

early next session as the date for the automobile insurance

premiums is in March. Nonetheless, I must say again that the

Minister has proposed what is the fairest scheme of having

British Columbia residents benefit from their own tax

money.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On the same

subject, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Premier and Minister of Finance indicate whether,

even if all other insurance rate differentials are eliminated,

these proposed revised rates will in any way reflect the

driving or accident record of the insured?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Of course, I welcome that question very

much. It is a difficult matter to deal with the individual

driver's record. That's why the Minister went ahead with the

programme of a point system. If you are a terrible driver, then

you get points on your licence and you pay more money.

Now I had one complaint. At a large meeting in Salmon Arm of

over 350 people, this was raised. Some poor fellow had been

driving while he was drunk and he was complaining that he had

to pay more money. I gave him a simple answer, which is the

answer to your question. If you don't want to pay more money,

don't drink while you're driving.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): To the Minister of Finance. In

view of the fact that the gasoline tax is part of general revenue and

funds all government programmes — mainly education and health, which

take up over half the provincial budget — how much do you plan to cut

down on these important functions of government — education and health?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is because of the

fact that gasoline tax is part of general revenue that we made

this move. We believe that all visitors, tourists and

non-residents, should pay their fair share for the use of our

roads.

If we eliminated or reduced the gasoline tax, we would be

benefiting our visitors, who are welcome to come but must pay a

fair share. Therefore, that is the direction we are going in;

everybody who visits beautiful British Columbia will help this

scheme, and we welcome them, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary question. I'd just like to

ask the Minister of Finance whether or not there will be

separate accounting kept, and whether or not the Legislature

will be able to be informed of the exact amount of money that

is put in from general revenues into the insurance corporation

each year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I hope by these questions

that the opposition is in no way indicating that they are

against lower car insurance premiums.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, come on. We're against phoniness.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there will be the accounting

that has always taken place in this House, even when Social

Credit was here.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A further

supplementary. The Premier's statement indicated that the ICBC

should go as far as they can in equalizing these rates around

the province, but he hasn't as yet told us how much money is

going to be assigned to them. Of course, if the whole gas fund

is assigned to them, they can do it all. So would he tell the

House that now?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Of course we are interested in a

flat-premium rating system, but the people who will benefit

most are the people in the north whose costs are high, the

people in the Interior whose costs are high, and elsewhere.

That is why I know that these Interior Members will support

it.

Now, you will get the figures as soon as the computer spills

them out at ICBC. We hope that we will be able to make them

public this fall.

MR. GIBSON: But there will be enough for

[ Page 3643 ]

everything then, to equalize it right across.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I said "idealized." ICBC has been

given the concept. You read my statement, and we will hold by

that statement. I know, I really know in your hearts you will

all be in favour of lower premiums for automobile

insurance.

WATER SOURCE FOR

PORT SIMPSON CANNERY

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce regarding the Port Simpson

cannery. I understand there is no water available on site. Is

the government going to underwrite the cost of the water

pipeline from the closest source, which I understand is a lake

approximately 10 miles away?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I'll take the Member's question as notice.

PURCHASE OF

ESQUIMALT WAREHOUSE

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): A question to the Minister of

Public Works: could he advise the House whether the government

has purchased a warehouse in the general area of Esquimalt and

Viewfield Roads?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): We've

purchased a warehouse on Viewfield, not the other street you

named. We have purchased on Viewfield, and this was some six

months ago.

MR. MORRISON: Could he advise us the price and the use of

it?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'll take notice on the details and give

you the details on the entire transaction.

ACCIDENT ON 401 FREEWAY

MR. CURTIS: To the Hon. Attorney-General: has the Minister

or his department requested a special report on a fatal

accident which occurred last week on the 401 freeway near

Chilliwack last Thursday? The Vancouver Province for May

31 indicated that a woman farm worker was killed and 22 other

persons injured when a three-ton van flipped over.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I thank the Hon.

Member for drawing this to my attention. I think I do remember reading

the news story. I don't know of any special inquiry. I would presume

there would be an inquest, but I will be glad to look into the matter.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister

aware of a statement which was attributed to the RCMP officers

attending, which indicated that the 23 farm workers were jammed

in the van "like sardines"?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think I recall that in the newspaper

account.

MR. CURTIS: I have a further supplementary. Will the

Minister determine how it occurred that hospital officials in

the Chilliwack area were unable to obtain names of the dead

woman or injured persons and were reportedly required to

identify them by numbers only?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a

language problem, but I wouldn't like to say that with any

certainty because, as I say, I think the matter should be the

subject of some inquiry first.

DAIRY AND HOG PRODUCERS

INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMMES

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Agriculture. Would he please confirm whether

or not the Dairy Income Assistance Programme is still running

at approximately $1.5 million a month? Would he please advise

the House as to what the Hog Producers' Income Assistance

Programme is running at this time per month?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I'll take that

as notice, Mr. Speaker.

BELLA COOLA–ROSCOE BAY ROAD

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Highways

whether his department has decided to construct a road between

Bella Coola and Roscoe Bay?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): No, I haven't decided.

There has been some work done by the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) in that area.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources whether, on the highway in question, he's

had any consultation with the Bella Bella Indian band? If so,

why has the band seen fit to circulate MPs with correspondence

indicating that they've had no consultation

[ Page 3644 ]

whatsoever on Indian reserves, timber reserves,

salmon

rivers, traditional hunting or, indeed, historic sites?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): Well, Mr. Speaker, building a road to Bella Bella would

be quite an achievement because Bella Bella is an island. The road that

the Forest Service is contemplating and is now carrying out surveys

with respect to, and is included in this year's budget, is from Ocean

Falls and Martin Valley to Roscoe or Shack Bay — a distance of some

nine miles or something like that. I'm unaware of any Indian reserves,

or the like, at all being affected. There are some semi-private

holdings, but by and large it is Crown land. I'm unaware of any of

those submissions, but I'd be very pleased to see a copy of the same.

ROAD FUND DIVERSIONS

TO ASSIST PLATEAU MILLS

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources. Could the Minister tell me if there have been

any diversions of forest development road funds from the

Hazelton area to assist the Plateau Mills operation in their

general area?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, there have been no diversions. We

are working according to the programme and

schedule that we've

had in mind for some time. It is not a matter of diverting

funds at all.

SHAWNIGAN LAKE DEVELOPMENT

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I have a range of answers to questions,

if Hon. Members are

interested. One is with respect to Shawnigan Lake, a question

from the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis),

and I would report that the Environment and Land Use Committee

has established a task group regarding that area. They are

reviewing engineering standards and minimum lot sizes as laid

out in the provincial subdivision regulations, and recommending

upgrading where necessary. They are reviewing the roles of

Health, Pollution Control Branch, and other agencies involved

in the approval of effluent disposal permits. This is

particularly concerned with: (1) problems associated with

approvals under and over 5,000 gallons per day; (2) problems

created by permitting approvals of subdivision developments in

discrete stages rather than in context of the whole

development; (3) the desirability and implications of

considering future communities, sewage and treatment facilities

and approval of subdivision development. I think that covers

that question, Mr. Speaker.

LAND-USE PERMITS FOR CROWN LAND

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't know how the time is, but there

is another question

with respect to access roads, from the Hon. leader of the

Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson). I would note that for the

purpose of constructing a road across Crown land, the Lands

Branch doesn't generally issue a land-use permit. Such use is

authorized by letter of consent, for which no charge is levied.

Conditions inserted in the letter of consent merely authorize

the use of Crown lands for the purpose of constructing a road,

and the holder of the letter of consent does not have any legal

tenure over the Crown lands. Such roads are open to the use of

the general public without charge. Letters of consent are

issued without regard to nationality. A land-use permit form of

tenure, however, would not be confined to Canadian citizens or

landed immigrants, so there would be two categories.

With respect to rights-of-way, well, I think that covers the

question.

SKAGIT VALLEY LOGGING

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There was another question from the Hon.

Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) regarding the request from the

ROSS committee for funding. In reviewing the correspondence,

March 6, 1973, there was a letter from ROSS offering to act as

intervener if hearings took place and if we wanted ROSS to

intervene on our behalf.

There was similarly a letter marked May 10, 1973, a letter

from ROSS referring to continued logging in the Skagit,

possible financial assistance to ROSS for intervention, and

indicating the recreation potential. As a result of that letter

we did intervene with respect to the logging in the Skagit

Valley.

October 22 we replied to a letter of theirs of September

stating that we did not intend to be an intervener and

therefore were not prepared to finance the ROSS committee at

that time, but we did advise them that technical expertise

would be made available with respect to the FPC hearings.

May 22 of this year we had a letter from ROSS indicating

their potential financial limitations — they had received

$25,000 from the Department of the Environment — and requesting

that daily transcripts be made available with respect to these

hearings. We replied on May 28 indicating that we were making

daily transcripts available to them, and I think that has a

substantial value to the committee.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 3645 ]

Report on Bill 16.

REAL PROPERTY TAX DEFERMENT ACT

Bill 16 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 39

Hall

Dent

Lockstead

Macdonald

Levi

Gorst

Barrett

Lorimer

Rolston

Dailly

Williams, R.A.

Anderson, G.H.

Nimsick

Cocke

Barnes

Stupich

King

Steves

Hartley

Lea

Kelly

Calder

Young

Webster

Nunweiler

Radford

Lewis

Brown

Lauk

Liden

Sanford

Nicolson

Anderson, D.A.

D'Arcy

Skelly

Gibson

Cummings

Gabelmann

Curtis

NAYS — 7

Chabot

Jordan

McClelland

Smith

Fraser

Morrison

Richter

Division ordered recorded in the Journals of the

House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 142, Mr.

Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, in moving second reading, I suggest that the time to

debate this bill is in committee stage. There are very minor

amendments here. One is to bring the municipal voting more

completely in line with the Provincial Elections Act.

There are other basically housekeeping provisions, most of them

having been requested by different municipalities, especially

by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I think the time to

discuss this is in committee, Mr. Speaker. I now move second

reading.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): There isn't anything really too

contentious, as the Minister said, in these amendments to the

Act. A few comments here though; the mess created last year

concerning elections to regional boards has been cleared up by

permitting municipalities to appoint as director anyone running

who lost at the polls. Villages are essentially given the same

rights as other municipalities. That is, I think, a good

feature.

Borrowing without electoral approval was expanded as well. A

council's right to establish a specific area with its own

initiative — this is a good thing, certainly in the rural areas

of the Province of British Columbia.

Removal of the requirement to pay for garbage disposal,

which really relates to commercial industrial exemptions is

provided. Dog bylaws are treated like traffic tickets, which is

the procedure already followed by Oak Bay, as I understand

it.

Municipalities are permitted to own shares in a corporation. I don't

think this party likes that and will probably oppose

this in committee stage.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, the amendments to this bill contain

the normal bits and pieces of amendments proposed from time to

time by the UBCM conventions.

Motion approved.

Bill 142, Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 , read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 106.

PHARMACY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 106; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 76 inclusive approved.

Schedules A, B and C approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 106, Pharmacy Act , reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 95, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

[ Page 3646 ]

The House in committee on Bill 95; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 30 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 95, Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act,

1974 , reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 96, Mr. Speaker.

COLLEGE PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 96; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 96, College Pension Amendment Act, 1974 ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Committee on Bill

97, Mr. Speaker.

TEACHERS' PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 97; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 97, Teachers' Pension Amendment Act, 1974 ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 98, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL SUPERANNUATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 98; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 98, Municipal Superannuation Amendment Act,

1974 , reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 126, Mr. Speaker.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 126; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 1 standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section I as amended approved.

section 2.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 2 standing in my name on the

[ Page 3647 ]

order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 3 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, just one or

two notes here. I have discussed this

section with the Minister

where it appears that she is trying to legislate in relation to

thinking and premeditated contravention of the Act. I recognize

that the purpose for this section, as she outlined it, was to

be able to have the department in a position where it could

take action in such instances as we saw in the health spa

situation in Kamloops where the people caused considerable

concern to the local people — involved themselves in, to say

the least, questionable business practices, then, when they

were closed up, moved on to another

section of the

province.

In my view there is much merit in having this type of

authority, to a degree. But as it is proposed here, I suggest

that the latitude that is in this

section really stretches the

credibility of the director. The Minister should consider some

protective action, perhaps by order-in-council, whereby no

director could pursue thought processes in an indiscriminate

manner. And before such action is taken, perhaps there should

be an order by the cabinet authorizing the director to move in

on a company before he has any substantial proof that they are,

in fact, involving themselves in questionable business

practices, if not illegal business practices.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman,

section 9 merely gives the

director the right to investigate. He has the authority of a

commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act . However,

the court is the final arbiter in a matter of this nature, so

there is the protection of resolution to the courts.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the Minister's comment on this in

that the court is the final arbiter, but I do suggest that this, if

abused, could cause considerable expense and harassment on the part of

government action as it's represented by the director in this instance,

if it's abused.

I again would suggest that I believe there should be further

protection here for the public in terms of the small business

operator, in order that no one could be unjustly victimized or

harassed on supposition rather than on fact.

The Minister is well aware, as we all are, that Court action

is expensive and time consuming and a very prolonged process.

The hiring of lawyers is costly.

Yes, I recognize you're having difficulty, Madam Minister — that

chatterbox on your left who does more talking than action

on the highways of British Columbia…. Incidentally, I've just

come over one of the highways and I'd like to know why that

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) isn't getting rid of the

potholes in the Fraser Canyon. It's a dreadful mess.

However, Madam Minister, I would urge you to see that an

amendment is brought into this Act next year — if not, I'll

propose it myself — offering protection to small individual

business persons to keep them, as I say, in a position where

they're not harassed unduly on the basis of supposition.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I think, Hon. Member, that I can definitely

give that guarantee that under no circumstances would the

director take any action unless he had sufficient and very

reasonable grounds that he could substantiate later in any

ensuing action. He would have to have those grounds before he

could make that kind of investigation before an incident.

MRS. JORDAN: I thank the Minister for her commitment.

Sections 9 to 12 approved.

section 13.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 13 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

section 14.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 14 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

[ Page 3648 ]

section 15.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 15 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

section 16.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 16 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

May I refer back to

section 16, Mr. Chairman?

section 16(5)

of the amendment, there was a drafting error in line 5. I

wonder if, by leave of the House, we could rectify that error by

inserting the words at the end of line….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister does not

require notice. You merely have to include that in your

amendment.

HON. MS. YOUNG: That is all right to submit that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

HON. MS. YOUNG: The new words would be: in lieu of "respect

of," it would be "by reason of" in

section 16.

MRS. JORDAN: In light of the fact that there is some

confusion over this amendment, I wonder if the Minister would

be kind enough to explain the need for it and how it changes

the meaning of the Act.

HON. MS. YOUNG: In this case, Mr. Chairman, it is sort of

tidying up the jurisdiction of the courts and the method of

going to court to get injunctive or declaratory relief. There

was some confusion as to the type of proceedings that should be

instituted. It would not have been in accord with the proposed

changes in the procedural rules of court that are now under

consideration, so this is merely to make it clear to the

supplier, the consumer and the director the proper order in

which one approaches the court. It clears up the track to the

court, in other words, the applications to the court.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I just wanted to

ask, Mr. Chairman, exactly what is the amendment to the

amendment? Could you describe this?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I'm sorry, Hon. Member, I didn't perhaps

explain that very well. Under

section 16(5) in, I believe, line 5, the

sentence says: "Dealing with the supplier in respect of an alleged

deceptive or unconscionable act." We have changed the words "in respect

of" to "by reason of."

MR. GIBSON: Line 4 or 5?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Maybe it's 4 in the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Well there's "in respect of" on each line.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Line 5?

HON. MS. YOUNG: It would be line 5. No, line 4, you're

right. Line 4.

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

section 17.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 17 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

section 18.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 18 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

section 19.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to

section 19 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

section 20.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 20 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

[ Page 3649 ]

Amendments approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to

section 28 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

section 29.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 29 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

section 30.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 30 as amended approved.

Sections 31 to 34 inclusive approved.

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if the Minister would advise the House

if the same legal counsel who drafted this multitude of

amendments drafted the original legislation. If this is the

case, certainly this Minister has the sympathy of the

opposition in that this leaves her, I'm sure, in a position

where she can't have too much confidence in legal counsel and

the legal advice she's getting. I would hope that in the future

there will be support for this Minister in her programmes by

sound back-up advice and proper drafting of legislation, and do

away with the sloppiness that's developing around this

department which cannot be attributed to the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Title approved.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports the bill

complete with amendments.

Bill 126, Trade Practices Act , reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 139, Mr. Speaker.

AGRICULTURAL REHABILITATION AND

DEVELOPMENT (BRITISH COLUMBIA)

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I

move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 139, Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development

(British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1974 , reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 100, Mr.

Speaker.

FIRE MARSHAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General):

Mr. Speaker, the

amendments in Bill 100 are mostly to do with enforceability of

the Act, terminology, some adaptation to the modern age in

terms of the new kinds of projections and automated equipment

which exists in theatres and a reduction in the age requirement

for projectionists from 21 to 19 years. I'll be glad to answer

in more detail in committee and I move second reading of this

bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 100, Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1974 , read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 3650 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 103.

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This bill has an important principle. I

don't want to repeat perhaps at any length some of the things

that have appeared publicly about the bill, but it's very

important. I know it does not touch the Criminal Code of

Canada . Most of the fines that we're concerned with — that is,

$100 or five days or something of that kind — are issued under

sections of that Criminal Code .

I cannot break down for the House, Mr. Speaker, the number

of people who are in jail because of their poverty as to

whether or not they are there in respect to an infraction of

provincial law which will be affected by this bill or because

of the Criminal Code , over which, in this respect, this

House has no jurisdiction. But the numbers of people who are in

jail for being unable to pay the fines is staggering. It is

unfair, it is an especial burden upon the poor people of the

province, and it also loads our correctional facilities with

people who really should not be there and transforms our

correctional facilities into a fine-collecting agency.

Let me give some indication of the figures. Twenty-five per

cent of the persons committed to all provincial institutions

are there because they can't pay the fines. In some areas of

the province, such as at the Prince George Correctional Centre,

that comes up to 38 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five per cent?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Overall — over the whole province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, of the admissions to correctional

facilities. Prince George, 38 per cent; Kamloops, 44 per cent.

They are in many cases — and I might as well say this quite out — areas

where there's a large native population. Of the people

who are in this position of being in jail because they cannot

pay a fine, a great many, I regret to say, are underprivileged

people of native Indian origin — a little more than half — notwithstanding that they, of course, represent a much smaller

proportion of our total population.

We can't touch the thing federally, but we can move in this

direction provincially. If it works well, then I'm sure we're giving a

signal to Ottawa because I'm sure that in the federal convictions, both

those who enter our provincial institutions and those who enter federal

institutions, the same kind of pattern prevails, So I think we're

giving Ottawa a signal that they should be following very closely the

social experiment that we're making in British Columbia, which is the

first of its kind, and that if it works well they should quickly follow

the kind of example we're setting in this Legislature.

Now we are simply outlawing the automatic nature of the

thing — that is, the $100 or five days or something of that

kind. We're making that sentence an illegal sentence. But we're

not letting off people who wilfully refuse to pay the fine or

who deliberately resort to evasion in terms of the fine,

because we will be organized and we are organized through our

regional court administrators to undertake the second course of

events, which would be a separate hearing for that person who

does not pay the fine, who's brought up, as it were, on

judgment summons before a judge of the provincial court — the

collection procedure being, as I say, in the hand of our

regional court administrators — and there the circumstances of

why he is not paying that fine will be gone into by the

judge.

If, as I say, the man is deliberately evading payment of the

fine or deliberately resorting to evasion, then of course he

can be imprisoned for that kind of conduct. But if he is simply

unable to pay the fine and doing his best and because of his

family problems or his inability to work or his physical

incapacity or something of that kind he simply cannot pay, we

do not believe that kind of person should be imprisoned in the

Province of British Columbia. It is doing nothing for society,

and certainly it is doing nothing in terms of the

rehabilitation of that individual, who is simply going through

a prison experience because he has no choice.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill, and I take great

pleasure in moving second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'll be very brief in

the comments I have to make. I think the Attorney-General has

already mentioned that this is experimental legislation,

introduced for the first time by a jurisdiction in Canada. With

that in mind, I suppose we have to approach it with a feeling

that we hope it will work well and that we do not find in

retrospect that it would have been better to have been a little

stiffer and a little tighter on our regulations with respect to

the payment of fines.

I would hope that it will work well and that it will in no

way impair the ability of the courts to function or the judges

in the Province of British Columbia. In some respects, I

suppose, what it is really doing is legalizing a discretionary

power that the judges in some jurisdictions have taken upon

themselves before, in granting people time to pay a fine if

they felt that that was required, even though it wasn't allowed

under any statute that we presently had on the books.

As I say, it is experimental. It's going to at least

[ Page 3651 ]

relieve the prison system from the burden of having

people

in their confines that have done no greater a misdemeanor than

perhaps imbibe a little too freely or have had some minor

infraction against them where they did not have the funds

available to them to pay the fine that was involved and the

judge had no alternative but to levy the jail sentence at that

time.

I hope it works well. The only thing that we can suggest is

that we'll watch it very closely, Mr. Attorney-General, I'm

sure, along with the rest of the people in the law enforcement

profession in the Province of British Columbia. Perhaps a year

from now we'll have another debate on whether it was good

legislation and worked as well as you had hoped.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

I would like to commend the Attorney-General on this move, but

in so doing I would ask him to recognize the serious criticism

that this amendment raises with respect to administration of

justice and the way in which we are able to adjust ourselves in

our various communities in this province.

The Attorney-General suggested that the number of people who

were being sent to jail for offences against provincial

statutes as a consequence of their being unable to pay their

fine was staggering. Those were his words. "Staggering!" Yet,

to my shock and dismay, he didn't give us any figures which

would indicate what "staggering" means to him.

He did point out, however, that a significant number of the

people who found themselves in this position were native Indian

people. This must say something about the way in which we

conduct ourselves in our various communities in the Province of

British Columbia whereby the native Indian is placed in a

position whereby he is unable to cope with the situation which

our laws create.

Far from removing any of the burden on our system of

administering justice in this province, I would hasten to

suggest to the Attorney-General that the amendment you have

here is going to increase rather than decrease the burden on

our justice system. Once a judge has had before him an accused

person and found that person guilty and determined that by

reason of his circumstances he should be given extended time

within which to pay the fine, having gone through the exercise

once, what we do in this legislation is to place that guilty

person again in the clutches of the system for administering

justice.

If he does not then pay in accordance with the terms set

down by the original judge, he finds himself before a judge not

on a criminal matter or quasi-criminal matter but on a civil

matter, which is whether or not he has paid his debt to the

Crown.

In the long run what we are doing is substituting debtors'

prison for prison in the first instance.

Therefore, having been in the toils of the courts once, if

the individual still finds it impossible to meet his

obligation, he will again be in the toils of the courts trying

to answer for his default.

I'm not suggesting I have the answer. It just seems to me,

Mr. Speaker, that when we are making this positive step — and

I'm not disagreeing with the direction in which the

Attorney-General is moving — for many of our unfortunate

citizens, a decision could be made at the outset whereby, if

the person's circumstances were such that he could not pay the

fine, there be a conviction and a suspended sentence. On a

subsequent offence, such a matter could be taken into account

and a decision made as to whether or not prison was really

likely to be the best deterrent for any repetition of this

offence.

We know that most of these offences arise in connection with

the liquor Act, the Firearms Act, 1966, or maybe the

Motor-vehicle Act or matters of that kind. We are not

involved with people who are engaged in violent criminal

activity. I think the step we are taking here is one which we

should try. I certainly hope the Attorney-General will keep

rather more accurate records than his department has

apparently been able to maintain heretofore, so that we can see

whether or not this system is working.

People must obey the law; people should not be forced into

jail because they are poor. But we should not involve them

overmuch, again and again, in the system of administering

justice. That only frustrates the system itself and obviously

does not act as a deterrent for repeated breaches of the same

legislation.

The Attorney-General hopes Ottawa will do the same, hoping

that in some areas of the criminal law, which is a federal

responsibility, they too will look at this possibility. I don't

think it is good enough for British Columbia to send signals to

Ottawa by passing this kind of legislation. I think it may be

like smoke signals. Whether or not they will ever be seen over

the Rocky Mountains, I'm not sure. I would hope the

Attorney-General could indicate that he has specifically

addressed himself to the Minister of Justice in Ottawa on this

subject.

I think we should take some positive steps. Having passed

this legislation, the Attorney-General should sit down with pen

in hand and write a note to the Minister of Justice, saying,

"Look what a good thing we have done here."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Whoever he may be.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Whoever he may be. He's a judge now,

that's right. Really take some initiative with the Minister of

Justice, and hopefully with the other Attorneys-General of this

country, so that if this system works it can be applied in the

criminal area as well.

[ Page 3652 ]

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I rise in

support of this bill. At this time I would like to point out

that when a man receives a sentence it is $100 or 10 days or

$250 or 30 days. At one time the sentence in jail was for the

poor people. Now money is just as hard to get, and this is what

is happening: the poor people can't get the money and they have

to serve the 10 days in jail. Even with this little relief here,

they still are being forced into this.

The point I am trying to bring out is that a day's work is

worth more than $10, which the law is using as a base as a rule

of thumb. It is either a $10 fine or one day in jail. I feel

there is a great injustice on the poor people because they

don't have the refuge of saying "Okay, I'm guilty; I can take

my $100 or three days in jail." But he can't take his three

days in jail. It is putting the Crown in the position of trying

to collect money.

In other words, are we interested in justice for the rich or

justice for the poor? The poor people need to have a lot of our

sentences and a lot of our fines rearranged so that the dollar

value is equal to the number of days for a jail sentence.

For example, the drunk Indian gets $100 or 10 days in jail.

That's not really a fair sentence. He hasn't got $100, so he has

to take 10 days in jail. Basically, he has done no harm. The

only harm he did was probably in sleeping in the wrong

place.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: Well, he must have amended it on me while I

wasn't looking. In so many days?

I still wish to protest the fact that we should go back to

the original supposition that there be a dollar relation to a

day in jail. In other words, it's not $10 for one day in jail;

it should be $30 at least in today's prices for one day in

jail. The poor people can go to jail instead of paying the

$100. If you are out of work, what is three days in jail?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would like to make

a couple of comments, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would indeed

associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). I think he most

eloquently stated the position. There are a couple of caveats

to this which I would draw to the attention of the

Attorney-General.

To me, notwithstanding the fact that it is a good measure,

it is a duplicating measure. I think it would have been far

more appropriate, if I have the ear of the Attorney-General at

the present time, if he had introduced amendments to the

Summary Convictions Act whereby the magistrate, without

question, would have unlimited discretion to grant any amount

of time and enter into arrangements for payment.

The practice in British Columbia has certainly been that the

magistrates do grant time. I say that from personal experience.

Possibly with the exception of the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), I suppose I have spent more time in

the magistrates' courts than probably any other lawyer who is present

in the House. I've always found that the magistrates have certainly

done their job, without any question of a doubt, to the best of their

ability and have liberally interpreted the statutes to the most they

can do.

But, Mr. Attorney-General, I personally feel you've gone too

far with this. I intend to support the bill but I think that

you have gone too far. I think it is an experiment that is

really not required.

If you had definitely instilled, without any question of a

doubt, in this statute the fact that a magistrate would have

power to grant time and review sentence and fines…. You're

bringing in a duplication of procedure, and it is certainly

going to be open for anyone to decide that they will not pay a

fine that is levied. They can do that; they flaunt the law

under this. They can wait for the second step, as the Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) said, when

this conviction for fine is going to be enforced in the other

courts of the province.

I heard your remarks in our caucus room over the loudspeaker

when you were speaking of the bill but I don't know that you

have fully explained to everyone that the procedures involve a

lot more than imprisonment. You merely say the enforcement of

judgment. That includes the attachment of debts and garnishee

proceedings. You've not stated that that will or will not

apply. It includes registering the judgment against the

person's interest in land, if they happen to have that. Or it

includes the sheriff's procedures for seizure of goods under a

warrant of execution or a writ of fieri facias as the case may

be in the court in question, and over and above that it also

includes the process that's known as judgment summons.

Then, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound said, here

we have an individual twice brought before the court with

additional expense and inconvenience and consumption of time

for him, and certainly additional expense, inconvenience and

consumption of time out of the public purse. I don't really

even see it stated in your Bill 103 as to who's to pay for this

procedure through the small claims court or through the Supreme

Court of British Columbia in the event that there would have to

be a jailing or an incarceration for contempt. Under the civil

processes that we have at the present time, if one is put into

debtors' prison, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

stated, it is the responsibility of the judgment creditor to

pay for his keep while he's there. I don't know what the levy

is, but he has to pay for the amount of time that the

individual is

[ Page 3653 ]

there. Well, presumably that would be taken right out

because the Crown would be attending to that, but you haven't

put that into your bill, which certainly should be in there as

well.

One other point, Mr. Attorney-General. In the unfortunate

and unlikely event that we find a situation where an individual

has flaunted the fine process and then he's brought up into

another court which can be conceivably the county court, the

supreme court or the small claims court, then under those

circumstances, if he follows this process of judgment summons,

he can be ordered once again to pay on instalment, and once

again he can flaunt that, and once again he can be brought to

pay or enter into different arrangements. Or if he proves to be

in contempt of the court by not appearing, or in contempt, in

the view of the judge, by not paying, then it's open to the

court to make an adjudication once again of imprisonment.

But we have, in the civil courts, the situation of the judge

not being able to go beyond the certificate of judgment that he

has. And the magistrate in the first instance takes into

account all of the facts connected with the conviction, with

the

summary offence. He takes all of those facts into account

when he makes his judgment. There can be a multitude of reasons

for a low fine, as indeed there should be. But those facts are

not before the judge in the second case.

Of course, you mentioned that trying to enforce this kind of

thing in the supreme court is next to impossible, it takes so

long. So as far as it is concerned, it is going to be a useless

procedure, in my view, from a practical point of view. If you

can tell me that it would work in the supreme court, it just

won't. There are better procedures in the county court, and

better procedures in the small claims court, I suppose, for the

enforcement side of it. But if an individual chooses to follow

this route and is the type of an individual — and unfortunately

there are some of those individuals in society — who society

have got to be protected against, and if they decide to take

the route of defaulting, notwithstanding the fact they'd have

the capacity to pay, you've given them an "Open, Sesame!" to do

that, which is unfortunate.

It's a very difficult bill to draw; I'm the first person to

appreciate that. I also appreciate your motivations in coming up with

what you've come up with, which I agree with. But I think the procedure

that you've developed here is an unnecessary procedure. I feel that you

could have established the same thing and done a better job by just

extending the jurisdiction to the judges of the provincial court to

award time, to have a person brought back to explain the circumstances,

and even under special circumstances say: "All right, notwithstanding

the fact that I've decided to fine you, Macdonald, $100, you have given

me very valid reasons why that fine cannot now be paid, and I'm giving

suspension on the thing."

Give them a better discretion in that court. That's all you

need to do as opposed to going ahead and complicating the whole

process. This is going to be very costly if you intend to

enforce it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD : Mr. Speaker, in the bill we are

in effect granting before somebody goes to jail just that second

hearing that the Hon. Member has been speaking about. What we're saying

in the bill is that it shall not be possible for somebody to

automatically go to jail under a warrant of committal simply because he

can't raise the money, without regard to the circumstances that

individual may be in.

MR. GARDOM: They don't know, my friend.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Of course they do. If somebody is given

a fine of $250 and are given 30 days in which to pay it, then

at the end of that 30 days if it isn't paid there's just a

warrant of committal and the fellow goes to jail without a

hearing.

MR. GARDOM: You can come back to the magistrate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's what we're providing — that that

must happen.

MR. GARDOM: You can do that now, Alex.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Some people know that they can go back

into court and make an appeal, which in effect would be doing

what this bill says must be done before the person

automatically goes to jail.

Now I recognize, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

said, that this supposes an additional burden upon the court.

As your learned colleague says here, a lot of people don't come

back and ask for an extension and appeal and that kind of

thing. And this would require a hearing before somebody goes to

jail. But I would point out that the cost to society of putting

these people in jail runs today at, let's say, about $18 to $20 a

day. That's the cost. So there's that element, too, in this

bill. We're thinking of the cost to society and to the taxpayer

for money spent in providing room and board in a jail for

somebody, which is of no use either to that person or to society

in terms of rehabilitation.

I agree we should signal Ottawa. We've discussed the thing a

little bit informally, but I agree with that point. I agree our

records are bad, and in the last year we have begun the

accumulation of records in this department of corrections.

We're thinking in terms, in a modest way, of computer services

to know who's in there, for what kind of an offence, for how

long and

[ Page 3654 ]

so forth. We don't know how many people — who are in jail, for

example, because they can't pay a fine — halfway through their

jail sentence, by phoning relatives and scrounging and trying

to get some help, are able to raise the fine and go out halfway

through their sentence. There are quite a few like that, but we

don't know how many. Our records are in terrible shape. They

were in terrible shape when I inherited this position. We're

correcting that, but we're correcting that slowly. The kind of

statistics I have been able to give is an indication that we're

beginning in that task, but we have not completed that kind of

an accumulation of the necessary data.

So, Mr. Speaker, on that basis, I move that the question be

put on second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 103,

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1974,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 235: Minister's office, $100,716.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to

raise too many more questions about the Minister's estimates.

Some of the questions I asked earlier I would appreciate an

answer to, if he can find them in his book.

I did want to mention briefly the announcement made by the

Premier over the weekend with regard to the subsidy of the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, using gasoline taxes

as the method of subsidy. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman,

that this is not only a slap in the face to automobile drivers

who are insured by the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, but also a slap in the face to every British

Columbian who lives and pays taxes in this province.

This kind of a blatantly phony subsidy goes against every tenet of

public accountability for a Crown corporation. It would have been much

more simple and much more honest, if this government really wanted to

do something for the automobile drivers of the province, to have had a

simple reduction of the gasoline tax such as they have announced in

Alberta. For this government to raise the phony straw man of giving

some benefit to those nasty tourists who drive their vehicles in

British Columbia is also an abdication of responsibility, for one

thing, because for every few dollars that you might save in taxes by

eliminating the tourists from this scheme, thousands will be spent on

administrative costs to attempt to police this scheme and to put it

into operation. Besides that, Mr. Chairman, every tourist who saves $1

or $3 or $2.75 would likely spend $25 or $50 or $100 in this province

anyway.

Just in passing, Mr. Chairman, I hope this government will

soon stop its obsession against tourists, particularly American

tourists, in this province, because they do contribute a great

deal to the life of British Columbia. As long as we continue to

harass them the way we are doing, they will find it ever more

difficult to come to British Columbia and bring not only their

money but their company as well.

The people of British Columbia expected some relief because

of the early announcements by the Premier and others in his

cabinet, but instead of relief they got shafted instead. They

are coming to find this to be commonplace treatment by this

government which gives them phony promises and takes their tax

money on the one hand and attempts to buy them back with the

other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to the Minister's administrative

responsibility?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the attempt by

this government to subsidize and cover up the inabilities of

this insurance corporation to function correctly because of the

mismanagement by this government.

Instead of getting relief we find this government has now

committed the consolidated revenue of British Columbia to shore

up what obviously now must be an enterprise that is in some

financial difficulty, or else for what reason is that kind of

subsidy needed? If it is in trouble, it's in trouble because of

this government's political interference with the rate

structure of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The

meddling around at the cabinet level, changing insurance rates

day by day by day has obviously got this corporation into some

kind of trouble, and it is now necessary to pour revenues from

the tax collected on gasoline by the Finance department, It is bad

enough, Mr. Chairman, that we have a Crown

corporation which is in the marketplace as a monopoly, but now

we are committed in British Columbia to funneling tax money in

to cover the weaknesses of that company and to hide that

corporation's true position from the people. We have dropped a

curtain of doubt over the credibility of the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia.

In the first instance, Mr. Chairman, we were

[ Page 3655 ]

promised, as citizens and automobile drivers of this

province, car insurance for $25. The government found it

couldn't fulfil that promise once it got into office, so then

we were told: "Well, you won't get your car insurance for $25,

but we'll give it to you a little cheaper."

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): You were never told that.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, they found out they couldn't fulfil

that promise either, Mr. Chairman, and then….

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: It was never made.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, come on, Mr. Member for Kamloops. Where

were you during the campaign? They must have kept you hidden to

get you elected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, once we found we couldn't get

$25 car insurance as promised, and we couldn't even get cheaper

insurance as promised, then they said: "Well, we'll give you

the car insurance at about the same price, because after all

you were going to get a 25 per cent increase this year anyway,

so if we give it to you for 25 per cent more than you paid last

year, or 10, or 8 or 7 or 16, or whatever, then we're all

right." But this government couldn't fulfil any of its promises

with regard to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,

and now we find that obviously the government's commitments

have been so shallow that we are now forced to start

subsidizing the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia with

gasoline taxes.

What is next? That's the question. Will we be funneling

stumpage charges into the ICBC? Mining royalties? Income taxes?

Sales taxes? Where do we go from here? Once you start with that

kind of a phony campaign to put the consolidated revenues into

a Crown corporation, then there's no ending to it.

How far do we take these subsidies? That's the question, Mr.

Chairman. When does the ICBC begin to stand on its own two

feet? I'll suggest that that's never, that this government will

always be pouring in the subsidies in order that the people of

British Columbia will never know where they stand with relation

to ICBC.

Mr. Chairman, it's a deliberate ploy by this government, and

it's one that I suggest was planned from the day that the ICBC

went from the drawing board. The day that this government had a

dream of ICBC they knew very well that the day would come when

we would be shovelling consolidated revenues into that company

to shore it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McCLELLAND: A deliberate, planned ploy by this

government.

Mr. Chairman, this government is playing the people of

British Columbia for patsies.

MRS. JORDAN: Never!

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sorry about that, Hon. Member.

(Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: I think that's a compliment.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this government should be

ashamed of itself because they've caught the people of British

Columbia up in some kind of a socialist governmental con game

and should be reported to the Bunko Squad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McCLELLAND: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is

one of the moves that this government has made which will go

down in the history of the Province of British Columbia as a

major scandal and one which this government will never live

down and never should be able to live down. I would ask that

the Minister responsible for the insurance corporation stand in

this House and tell us that the Premier was only fooling, and

that he didn't really mean that we were going to put the

consolidated revenues, the tax money collected from the people

of British Columbia, into this corporation and that he will

instead allow the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to

stand on its own two feet and be responsible for its own

actions, its own expenditures and its own revenues. Until he

does that, Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia demand

probably his resignation, because you are conning the people of

British Columbia. I couldn't express it any better than to

change the name of this corporation to the IC Bunko

Corporation. It's as simple as that.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

I am sorry that the statement made by the Premier upset that Member so

much that he should use the kind of language that he has used this

afternoon. I can understand him being perturbed. I can understand him

being upset. I can understand him flailing desperately, as he obviously

was, to try and say something, anything, it didn't matter which. I'm

very happy he made that speech. I'm very, very happy he made that

speech because I want to tell that Member that that speech will live to

haunt you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

[ Page 3656 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That speech will live to haunt you. Yes,

sir. And I'm glad that in his speech the Member admitted that

this government is going to be here for a long, long time

because you said that "This government will always" — always

was the phrase he used — "do this and do that and do some other

thing." So I recognize that you are face to face with reality.

You recognize that what you were saying was just a bit of an

attempt to try and cloud the waters, cloud the issue, and again

infer that there was something wrong, something almost sinful,

about the fact that we're governing this province in the

interests of the people of the province.

Let me say first of all, Mr. Chairman, that that Member

talked about $25 car insurance. As I recollect the last

published figures taken from the reports that were given to us…and let me tell you, after we became government we found

that the annual reports that were available to us didn't

present the whole picture, and certainly didn't present the

picture with regard to the cost of the insurance of government

automobiles. Nowhere did it mention the fact that there were

citizens of this province who were taken to court by the

government in order to recover substantial sums of money. That

never showed in any accounting as to what it cost. That was

used to reduce the figure.

Nowhere in the report did it say that all of the legal costs

related to all of these cases came out of the

Attorney-General's estimates. And item and after item was never

given to the….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No way! I won't go into the number of the

highly emotional phrases the Member used. But I'm glad he made

them because they will live to haunt him.

I want to say very clearly that what that Member has said

today — and I wish the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) was in his seat when that Member was making that

speech — is that he believes in a system that discriminates

against citizens of the Province of British Columbia because of

where they live.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that Member was saying very clearly

to people of this province that he doesn't believe in fairness

and equity among the citizens of the Province of British

Columbia. It's obvious.

What is proposed here is that we take some revenues derived from

motorists and use it to help motorists. It's as simple as that. We want

to bring fairness and equity to the motorists of this province and to

remove as much as possible the discriminations built into the system

that we inherited.

Now, you can be for it or you can be against it. It's

obvious that you are going to oppose it. I'm glad you're going

to oppose it because that's the message to the people: the

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) is opposed to fairness and

equity, and is in favour of discrimination among the motoring

public of the Province of British Columbia.

I want to remind you that I said last week — and I said it

last fall — that the objective and ideal must be to bring

equity, fairness and remove discrimination.

Again, this Member raised this cloud about hiding financial

statements. I assured you last week, and I assure you again,

that the financial reports of the corporation will be tabled in

the House next year showing sources of revenue and everything

else, just as it was this year. You may not like it, but there

they were.

I'm not going to answer that blatantly emotional attempt to try and find some ground to stand on that has some

justification. You failed to make a case. You just indulged in

a tirade of emotional outburst because of your disappointment

over the fact that we are going to bring fairness, equity and

justice to the motoring public of the Province of British

Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Talking about speeches living

to haunt people, I think that the Minister himself is on the

worst possible ground.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) mentioned

promises made by the government. Let's see how sneaky the

promises are. Here's the ad; the Hon. Member for Langley just

gave it to me a second ago. "They insure 'their' vehicles with

'government insurance' for less than $25 a year. Compare that

with your rate."

Then it goes on:

"They compel us to purchase insurance from private

companies, many of them owned and controlled from

the U.S.A. — companies whose constant, uncontrolled price

increases have made B.C. auto insurance rates one of the

highest — and at the same time saying no to government

automobile insurance for B.C. residents.

"Our government insures their vehicles through a

government plan at an exceptionally low rate."

It goes on to talk of government automobile insurance,

allegedly under the previous regime, at $25 — and how a

government auto insurance scheme would be brought in by the

NDP. If that isn't a straight promise by way of advertising to

the people of British Columbia…! We're dealing with people

who the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) should

have in jail for dishonest advertising. That's what it is.

It's the type of advertising which would have any

[ Page 3657 ]

private outfit in jail; and they know it.

"Speeches which will live to haunt him," were the

words of the Minister.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He has just said he didn't make that

speech. He wasn't responsible for that ad; that was simply

authorized by the British Columbia New Democratic Party. And,

of course, he, the former leader and present Minister of the

Crown, isn't part of it, he's trying to imply.

He said: "I didn't say that."

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, he's the fellow who was responsible

for implementing NDP promises on automobile insurance. He was

given the task; he took it happily. Now he claims that, well,

he's not responsible for what was promised by his own party in

previous months. That's literally absurd.

Mr. Chairman, when the whole question of automobile

insurance came up, when government automobile insurance was to

be brought in, the Minister made a real fetish of going around

saying that there were going to be no tax moneys brought in and

used in the scheme. He kept on telling people: "No, it was

going to be run at cost, and it was going to be a lot less than

the private cost."

Well, I'll tell you why it went far higher than he ever

expected. First, he didn't do his arithmetic; he didn't find

out how much premium money was previously paid out to repair

cars and for injured people and that type of thing. He didn't

find out how much was paid out and he didn't find out how much

was left for administration where, theoretically, there might

have been some saving. He just didn't do his homework in that

area. Had he done it, he would have found that buying computers

without any tendering — at $1,000 per day, a third-of-a-million

more a year than other companies might have provided — is the

type of thing that raises cost.

Your administration and running costs obviously have to be a

small percentage of your premium dollar. You start going wild

on computers; on buildings — on the Royal Centre in Vancouver — on

land, buying land out there in the valley for $0.5 million

for 20 acres, which turned out to be farmland that wasn't usable;

salaries — we've gone into that before; having people released

before they've hardly done a day's work — thousands upon

thousands of dollars of separation pay without telling us why

all this money was spent: that's the way you boosted costs up

to the point where you now find you simply can't run the scheme

without subsidy. That's essentially what we're talking

about.

There was some talk about speeches and statements coming back to

haunt people. Well, let's just look at what you said yourself. You took

the trouble to write to the newspapers, to correct them for a

misunderstanding, to tell them how sure you were that you weren't going

to use tax money in ICBC. This is a quote, a letter to the editor from

Robert M. Strachan, Minister of Highways, Victoria.

It came out in The Vancouver Sun on March 5,

1973, page 5. It was to the editor.

Sir:

"The editorial of February 23 entitled 'Insurance

Verdict

Awaits Road Test' repeats an error that I have already drawn to

the attention of another newspaper.

"The fourth paragraph of your editorial observes that

I had

said that there will be no profit in the government automobile

insurance plan, and then went on to claim that the legislation,

'also gives the government the right to seize such revenue for

its own uses if it wishes.'

"As did the other newspaper, your publication has

confused

provisions in the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

bill with those in the automobile insurance bill. ICBC will, as

the legislation makes clear, operate in the general insurance

field for a profit, and the cabinet will have a discretionary

power to appropriate a portion of any profit from general

insurance into the consolidated revenues of the province — in

essence, paying a dividend to the taxpayers of British

Columbia."

In actual fact, I understand from newspaper reports

that instead of a dividend we had a loss of approximately $1

million on general insurance. Perhaps you'll explain that in

your statement.

But here comes the part of the letter that deals with

automobile insurance, and the very point that we're discussing

in this Legislature today.

"But the automobile plan legislation specifically

establishes a separate and distinct account for all automobile

insurance business. Only auto insurance premiums, income from

investments of those premiums and other auto

insurance-generated revenue (for instance, car-salvage profit)

will go into the Autoplan account.

"The only money that can come out of that account is

for the

payment of claims and the associated costs of Autoplan.

"I repeat: No tax dollars in; no surplus out." Let me

just

repeat that:

"I repeat:" — said the Minister of Highways — "no tax

dollars in; no surplus out."

MR. McCLELLAND: What made him change his mind?

[ Page 3658 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's a good question, Mr. Member for

Langley. What made him change his mind? But before we get to

that, I'll just finish off the letter, so he doesn't accuse me

of partial quotes.

"If any year's operation produces a surplus" — fat chance of that! — "it will be used to build the necessary

reserves against the deficit of a bad year. Or else it will be used to

either lower premiums or raise benefits for the insurance buyer.

"I should like to add that

section 3 of the Autoplan

bill and various company provisions ensure that all financial

accounting of the Crown corporation will be tabled every year in the

Legislature for public scrutiny…"

Just as B.C. Hydro's used to be tabled by the previous

administration: a year late, or more than a year by the time

you get a chance to look at it.

"…Including the separate accounting of every

dollar

going into and coming out of the auto insurance plan.

"I am confident that if careful rereading of the bill

is done, it will reveal the error in your

editorial."

The error is not in the editorial, the editorial of

February 23 of 1973. The error is in the Minister's constant

claim that tax moneys would not be used to subsidize auto

insurance in the Province of British Columbia, and that

Autoplan would stand or fall on the basis of its operation and

the success of its venture in the commercial field. Now we have

totally departed from that by a subsidy scheme, as announced by

the Premier, by way of a subsidy for premiums paid to ICBC in

the Province of British Columbia.

Now, people pay insurance and people pay taxes, so what's the

difference? The difference is this: in any scheme where a

government goes in and claims that it's so splendid in business

matters, claims that it's going to be cheaper, claims that it's

more efficient, and then finds out in approximately less than a

year that it isn't, that it's been wrong, that it's been wrong

in all its statements, that its accounting is bad, that its

original predictions were bad, then that company, I feel, has

proved that it is not competent in its relationship to private

industry; and private industry could never possibly have a fair

opportunity of comparing government insurance cost with those

of the private sector.

Why is it higher? I've heard stories galore as to what's

wrong with ICBC. They say that they have two vastly expensive

computers, one of which doesn't work if the other is on because

of air conditioning problems. There's talk about a much higher

payout in British Columbia in claims as opposed to the average

elsewhere in the country; a difference of approximately 60 per

cent higher is one claim made.

There is talk, of course, as we all know, about the extremely

expensive head office, high command operation — the people who are the

major or top management level of ICBC. All these claims have been made,

and obviously all these claims, if true, can indicate why the costs are

so high and why you are having to subsidize ICBC in this manner.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

I personally feel that insurance, automobile insurance, is a price

that every driver should pay. It should not be subsidized from general

tax revenue. We have a situation here where you're taking money out of

general revenue. Money out of general revenue goes to all sorts of

things: education, hospitals, old people, Pharmacare and what-have-you.

You're taking that money out of general revenue and you're using it to

subsidize the 1.35 million people in B.C. who have a driver's licence.

You're subsidizing probably the highest-income British

Columbians as opposed to those on the other end of the scale

with probably the lowest income — the pensioners, the young and

others.

So what you are doing is taking regular money which now goes

for other purposes and pumping it into a scheme which benefits

the top half of the population in terms of income. Why on

earth, if we're dealing with people who can afford to drive,

can't they afford to pay by way of premiums the full cost of

their insurance?

The reason that I find this whole scheme of rebates

intolerable is that the money comes out of the public pocket

one way or another; but if you force it on premiums, you at

least take it out of the half of the population which is best

able to pay it. Now, sure, it's easy to talk about gasoline

taxes and where it's coming from, but that gas tax money is at

the present moment going into general revenue. And that's the

money which goes in to support a vast array of other social

programmes as well as, of course, highways.

Now it's absurd to work out a scheme which obviously is

going to be administratively expensive, which is going to cost

money….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ohhh!

MR, D.A., ANDERSON: For premium rebates is not going to

cost money? Issuing well over a million cheques a year is not

going to cost money? The Premier snores. It will cost

money.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now the Premier is suggesting that

somehow or another this cheque that people will receive will

not be related to their automobile insurance premium. It's

utterly absurd to

[ Page 3659 ]

put forward a scheme which does not in any way lower the

cost to the people of British Columbia but increases them in

the overall sense, which indeed aids the half of the population

which is most wealthy, which in no way will reduce the cost of

insurance in British Columbia but will, in actual fact,

increase it by way of extra administrative costs.

The Minister has time after time made statements saying that

this scheme is going to stand on its own two feet. It's going

to be a scheme which "will have no tax dollars in." Those are

his own words over his own signature a year ago. He's tied

himself to a policy of letting ICBC be judged on its

merits.

Now we find that the merits of ICBC are so weak, the record

of ICBC is so poor, that we are going to have nothing to

compare with because they're going to subsidize it. They're

going to fudge the figures, and they're going to make perfectly

clear that there will indeed be no way of comparing ICBC's high

costs with the costs of insurance in the private sector.

Perhaps the Minister has come to a conclusion which I think

most that have considered insurance have come to. That is that

no matter who people pay their premiums to, they don't like it.

When they're paying premiums to private insurance companies,

they don't like it.

Now they're paying it to the government, and they don't like

it either — in particular where you've got not only your

automobile premium but your driver's insurance as well, and

you're getting nicked for points which previously were simply

related to your record with the Motor Vehicle Branch and the

possibility of having your licence suspended.

You know, we took off the fines for driving offences on the

grounds that it was something which the rich could pay but the

poor found a hell of a lot more, or a great deal harder to pay,

Mr. Chairman. We took that off and put on a point system which

is meant to be fairer to rich than poor.

Now, by way of the back door, we see the Minister

introducing drivers' insurance premiums which are essentially

the old type of fine all over again, and once more aids the

person who is rich and discriminates against the person who is

poor.

The Minister's defence so far of this total reversal of policy with

respect to subsidies has been thoroughly unconvincing. He's tied

himself to the other scheme. I suggest that if he cannot justify this

change of policy any better than he has done, if he cannot stand by his

previous statements and his commitments and the trouble he took to

point out to other people that, "Oh, no, they're wrong!" — he even went

to the extent of writing letters to newspapers — if he can't justify

this change, then I suggest that he gets out of his portfolio, because

he himself has clearly failed to live up the promises he made, clearly

failed to live up to the statements of the NDP ranging from that $25 a

year insurance right through to the latest, which was, of course, that

you wouldn't pay more than before. If he can't do it, if he can't

justify it, he should step down.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would ask

the Member to withdraw the statement that I should be in jail

for dishonesty. I ask the Member to withdraw that

statement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if it offends the Minister….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No ifs! No ifs!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, let me make perfectly clear

one thing which the Minister apparently doesn't understand.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Either I wasn't in the chair at the time or if

I was, I didn't hear the comment. If it has been made, I would

ask you to withdraw unconditionally.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, had it been

made.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you very much. You withdrew. That's

all I asked for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would both of you sit down? I

recognized earlier that the Minister had asked for withdrawal.

I understand that you have now withdrawn, and the Minister has

the floor.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I in no way withdrew a

statement I did not make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm asking you to withdraw.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why? For making a statement that if a

private company advertised the way the NDP advertised on that

$25-per year insurance they would be in for criminal…?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I wrote the words down. He

said that I should be in jail for being dishonest.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Were you in private industry, I think you

would be.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let him go — I'm not going to bother.

[ Page 3660 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, just let me make this comment.

It doesn't really matter whether the Minister thinks that a

withdrawal isn't necessary. In my view, a withdrawal is

necessary, and I would ask the Member to withdraw

unconditionally.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I find it curious, because

you were not in the House, by your admission. But I will

withdraw what you heard, if that's what you are worried

about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The fact is that all Members agree that those

statements were made; they're now withdrawn. Would the Hon.

Minister please continue?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've already

answered the statement repeated by this Member about the ads

which said $25. That was based on the limited information which

the previous administration had made available. The statement I

made about no tax moneys was, of course, made before the oil

companies increased the price of gasoline by eight or nine

cents. We are determined to….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right, that's right.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It increased costs to the motorists.

Okay, you're opposed to a concept of fairness and equity and

equality throughout the Province of British Columbia. This

afternoon you put yourself clearly on record and the Liberal

Party clearly on record as being opposed to fairness, equity

and removal of discrimination in the Province of British

Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you for that statement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member went on to repeat a catalogue

of mismanagement and expensive headquarters and all the rest of

it. Mr. Chairman….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute. In actual fact, Mr.

Chairman, just after the rental rate had been negotiated at the Royal

Centre for the headquarters of the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, I was on a plane coming to Victoria with the lawyer who

represented the lessor — I guess that is what you call him — of the

property.

That lawyer, who is a former Attorney-General of the

Province of British Columbia, said: "You've got a first-class

rate." Do you know what the rate was? The effective rate is

$6.97 a square foot. Where can you match that in downtown

Vancouver? Where can you match that in downtown Vancouver? — $6.97 a

square foot!

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, there it is. You don't like

that.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What does it include?

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No escalation clause. That's it — over

the length of the contract. It is one of the best rates

negotiated in Vancouver in the last three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many years is the contract?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Five years.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You know, the centre shouldn't have been

in Vancouver.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've already gone through that and

explained why. You know, you're not here half of the time.

You're on the plane flitting back and forth.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Where were you in the question

period?

MR. GARDOM: In Vancouver, making a speech.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. And he blames others.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're against the world.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I can show this soon-to-be-erstwhile provincial Liberal leader….

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to tell you that if

[ Page 3661 ]

you examine the editorials that have been written by the

Vancouver papers over the years, you will find that a recurring

editorial talks about the load that the motorist has had to

carry in the Province of British Columbia. As I said, when the

oil companies increased the gasoline tax, then we had to look

at ways to help overcome the shortcomings of the federal

government. We decided that this was the best way to do it.

But there is another factor here. Had we done what other

provinces have done and reduced the gasoline tax, it would have

failed to take into consideration the fact that in a time when

we recognized that there is a limit to world energy resources,

we would have been encouraging the continued use of massive

gas-eating cars.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you drive?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I drive a standard car.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: When I listen to the leader of the

Liberal Party talk about increasing the administrative costs of

this procedure, obviously he just has no understanding of the

concept. As a matter of fact, Mr. Member….

I'm glad you have your mind made up. Don't change your mind,

please. Continue to say the things you have been saying and I

will be very, very happy. I'll be very, very happy.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman,

there has been a little more heat than light this afternoon.

I'm also rather thankful that the leader of the Progressive

Conservative Party is absent elsewhere in the province;

otherwise, dirks….

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Oh, we'll tell him

that.

MR. CURTIS: Wait until I am through, Mr. Minister of Labour.

Dirks and claymores would be out once more, and we would have

another clan battle such as last week.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now's your chance to join the Socreds.

He's not here today.

MR. CURTIS: There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that the

Premier, in making his announcement over the weekend, and the

government in endorsing that particular move, has admitted a

very major failure as far as Autoplan is concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish.

MR. CURTIS: Rubbish? Well, we will find out what is

rubbish.

My remarks are going to be very brief, and then perhaps the

Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) can defend this dramatic

reversal which has been taken by the Premier and his party with

respect to automobile insurance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: When are you joining the Socreds?

MR. CURTIS: Do you believe everything you read, Mr.

Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's a dramatic reversal. Are you

joining them or aren't you?

MR. CURTIS: I'm speaking about Autoplan. Would you call that

Member to order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I would ask that all Members try to

maintain some order.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, you would be quick to draw a

Member on this side to attention. Are there special rules for

the Premier in this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've been slow to draw all of you to

attention.

MR. CURTIS: Okay. The introduction of subsidy in ICBC is

going to sufficiently cloud the financial failure of Autoplan

that we will never be in a position to sort it out. Public

accounts notwithstanding, we will not be able to recognize

actual costs of insuring automobiles and other motor vehicles

in British Columbia, because it is going to be operated with

one hand in the Autoplan purse and the other hand in the

consolidated revenue purse.

I've enjoyed the very interesting comments on both sides of

the House over the last few days. As someone who has been

involved in advertising for quite some time, I think that once

again we have to make it abundantly clear that, intentional or

not, the advertisement that was published by the New Democratic

Party during the 1972 election campaign implied that autos were

going to be capable of being insured for less than $25 a

year.

Denials on the other side of the House will not erase this

ink. As the leader of the Liberal Party indicated just a few

minutes ago, it says in black headlines: "They insure 'their'

vehicles with 'government insurance' for less than $25 a year.

Compare that with your rate."

MR. CHABOT: That's sleazy advertising.

MR. CURTIS: "Sleazy" is an excellent word, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 3662 ]

There is another document. I don't know where this one came

from but it was obviously election campaign material released

by the New Democrats during the summer of 1972. It has a little

rate comparison with respect to various categories of drivers

between Vancouver and Regina. For the purposes of the campaign

here: "The B.C. government pays $23.85 to insure a vehicle, but

look at what you are forced to pay."

I think it is very significant that the comparison was

between Vancouver and Regina, because I believe it can be

substantiated that if the comparison had been between Victoria

and Regina, it would have been found that in many instances

Victoria automobile rates were lower under private insurance

than Regina. The reference for that, in fact, is a statement

from the Wootton royal commission.

Another interesting point in campaign literature, which was

released during 1972 prior to the August 30 vote, was a folder

on behalf of Roy Cummings and Phyllis Young, Vancouver–Little

Mountain New Democrats. It dealt with in its entirety: "Public

Auto Insurance: It is a Matter of Dollars and Sense."

Point 9: "Some critics say that Saskatchewan rates are

subsidized. Is this true?" This was a question-and-answer

folder. Answer:

"Completely false. Saskatchewan insurance has never

been subsidized in 25 years. Rates have not

increased in the last five years. Saskatchewan government

insurance gives 82 cents out of every premium dollar back to

the motorists in benefits. The average return under private

plans is only 63 cents. Many private companies play a numbers

game with untypical examples to prove that private plans are

cheaper. This is completely disproved by examining the whole

picture."

Mr. Minister, you are playing the classic numbers game of

the decade in British Columbia. It's the classic numbers game

of the decade, and something the people of British Columbia will

not let you forget when we have the next provincial general

election. Autoplan is in a state of confusion with changes

being made daily — and with indecision. It is going to be

remembered, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, in every

part of this province.

One of the points that distresses me most is the Premier's

hang-up about golfers and people who live in certain parts of

greater Vancouver and greater Victoria. He has this

rich-people-versus-poor-people hang-up.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Go ahead, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea); it is nice to have you speak today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Poor people vote too.

MR. CURTIS: We have this quote by the Premier that big cars

will pay more as a result of this latest change. This troubles

me, Mr. Chairman, because somehow the Premier imagines that

every big car is a brand new limousine — or that it's a very

large, expensive 1974 automobile.

I wonder if the Premier and this Minister responsible for

Autoplan realize that many big cars on the road today are those

which their owners would very much like to get rid of. They are

older cars, and they are available to those people who cannot

afford to buy smaller, more economical automobiles of 1972,

1973 or 1974 vintage.

They are heavy gas users because they are several years old — 10 years old in some instances. Yes, they are large. They are

big old Fords; they are big old Chryslers; they are large old

Buicks, but they are cars which their owners would really

prefer to get rid of.

All the grand statements about the visitors going to pay

their fair share is one thing, but what about a fair share for

those who are forced through owning an older, heavy,

gas-consuming automobile? What about a fair break for them

under this latest Band-aid which has been introduced with

respect to Autoplan?

Not all big cars on the road today in British Columbia are

owned by wealthy people, and the Minister knows it well. And

the Premier should know it well, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FRASER: First of all, I was out for a while this

afternoon, but I would like to point out to the Premier and the

Minister of Transport and Communications that we debated here

Thursday and Friday and tried to get this information out.

We assumed something was going to happen, and of course it

did Friday night with the announcement of the Premier. I would

say that the Minister responsible certainly didn't level with

this House during that debate, taking the position that he

couldn't speak for the Premier.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he was aware of what was

going on. If he wasn't aware of what was going on, he should

resign from his portfolio, if the Premier is in effect running

his portfolio, which is the indication he gave us following the

Premier's announcement.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: You certainly did get stonewalled by the

Premier. I would like to say that in view of the fact that this

announcement was made up in the Interior of the province by the

Premier of the province…. I realize the NDP has trouble in

Kamloops, and it's a good place to turn this loose as far as

they are concerned politically.

[ Page 3663 ]

But I read articles about our present Premier saying all the

love he has for this Legislature and everything. I suggest he

has sure changed his mind. He has now an utter disregard for

this Legislature where this sort of announcement should have

been made, particularly in view of the fact we were debating

that very department of government. It's an insult to every

elected person in this House, and I expect to hear from all the

NDP's silent backbenchers in this regard.

I take this very seriously, and it's a real slap in the face

to this democratic institution.

The other thing I would like to say is that there's always a

good part to what the socialists announce — one good part to

about three bad parts. I would like to go on record that, as I

understand it, you are going to try and arrive at a

postage-stamp insurance rate.

I congratulate you for that if you can do it because the

Interior and the north of this province have been second-class

citizens for far too long. I was amazed, when Icky-Bicky (ICBC)

took over from the private people, that they continued on with

that same policy. Now you are indicating that you might change

it.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Better tell your friends.

MR. FRASER: Getting on to the switcheroo that's taken place

by the Premier's announcement, for the information of the

House, Mr. Chairman, to subsidize it from the gas tax is only

part of the issue. The gas tax, the motive — fuel taxes and the

licence plate revenues all go into general revenue. From the

general revenue pot we here in this Legislature vote the money

for the public service and the 18 different departments of

government.

I don't think the Minister can answer this, but maybe he can

get into a ballpark figure: how much money are we talking

about? Surely they have done some research on this. In other

words, how much are we going to steal out of general revenue

and divert to subsidize Icky-Bicky Autoplan? I would suggest if

there is a minimum of $30 million to a maximum of $50 million — and I

would like to hear the Minister deny that when he speaks — that's a fair amount of money coming out of general

revenue.

This government and prior administrations have had their

emphasis on services to people mainly through Human Resources,

Education, Health and the hospital field. Are these priority

departments that bring service to people going to suffer

because of the mix-up and mess that this government has got us

in over the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia? After

all, it's only been in operation three months, and now they've

got to reach in and bail it out to the tune of $50 million a

year.

I don't go along at all with the thought that I heard earlier from

former government, the Liberal Party. That doesn't make any marks with

me at all because I can assure you that they've gone down the tube.

They'll never be the government again, so you're beating a dead horse

as far as the Liberals are concerned.

It is really an international problem that we're dealing

particular party for it. It's a world problem.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Are you saying the

Liberal Party is a dead horse?

MR. FRASER: I didn't quite say that. (Laughter.) The other

observation I would like to make on auto insurance rates

generally is the average increase — and I can only talk for the

area I know: the Interior and the north — is 20 to 25 per cent.

When Icky-Bicky took over from private enterprise on March

I say to you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, that

with all this finagling around and the postage-stamp rate — which is

the good part of it — when it's all finished, we are

going to have to subsidize this plan and we will be right back

with the auto rates we had in 1973. There might even be an

increase. I realize there's inflation and something has to go

up, but what's this exercise all about anyway? We should never

have been found in this situation in the first place.

Another thing I brought up the other day to this Minister — and

since then I have been to the Interior of the province — regards the

surcharge put on by various body shops throughout

the Interior over their argument with the Insurance Corporation

that they won't work for their rates. They want $16 an hour and

the Insurance Corporation will only pay approximately $14.50.

The Minister replied that he thought an arrangement had now

been worked out. That could well be; I didn't have time to find

out. But I was approached in the Interior by the citizens who

have paid the surcharge. I would like to hear from the Minister

whether the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will

entertain a refund to these unfortunate citizens.

They have had to pay, at the rate of $1.50 an hour,

depending on the length of the job — say, 20 to 30 hours — $30

to $50 to get their vehicle out of hock. The body shops just

won't release them. They have paid their full premium. While

they haven't got a policy — which they would like to have — to

see what obligation the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia has, on the assumption that they are obligated to pay

when an accident takes place, this has not happened since March

1, 1974. It might have stopped on May 14 when the Minister

replied the

[ Page 3664 ]

other day. There are quite a few thousands of dollars

involved here.

It isn't a great deal to the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia, but it certainly means a lot to an individual

workman who has to pay his insurance premium and then pay a

surcharge to get his car fixed after it has been in an

accident. I would like to know what the Minister intends to do

about this.

We have some other legislation here. I'm not sure where it's

at, but what I told them — and I know the Minister will be

pleased to hear this — that rather than let him worry about it,

I said I know what I would do about it: I would send it to the

Minister of Transport and Communications and ask for a refund

in the form of a letter.

If your mail goes up, Mr. Minister, in the next few days,

you can blame me for it. Don't refer it back to me.

I hope you understand that we really made them second-class

citizens twice. I would like to hear from you on that subject

as well.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Before we leave the vote,

there are a couple of questions I would like to ask the

Minister.

I would like to have him tell the House what happens to an

individual who, for one reason or another, decides to lay his

vehicle up for the summer or for any extended period and

removes the licence plates from it, turns it in to his agent,

applies for a refund on his licence and for his insurance. How

long should it take before he receives his cheque from

ICBC?

I had a call over the weekend from a young gentleman who put

his car up after he left university. It has been something

over six weeks since he turned his licence plates in. As of

this point he has not yet received a notification of whether he

will be receiving the money. He has no idea of how much he is

entitled to, and he is most anxious to find out what the score

is.

Do you want to answer that and I will go on to the next

one?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. Certainly he will be entitled to a

prorated rebate. There is no question about that. How long will

it take? They will do it as quickly as they can. If for any

reason there is a hold-up on this one, if you give me the

particulars I will have it checked out immediately.

MR. MORRISON: I notice that particular one is six weeks.

While we are on the subject, then, I will refer to one in my own

family which is now slightly over four. My No. 2 son turned his

in.

The other point I would like to ask then is that we are still

receiving reports of people who are having to go to small debts courts

to settle their deductible portion and to find out who is responsible

for paying the deductible portion of their insurance. Do we now have,

in effect, a no-fault insurance where each man is going to be required

to pay his deductible, or are we going to get into some way where that

can be settled by the claims office without the need of going to small

debts court? Can you answer that for us?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As you know, under the old system there

was an assignment of blame. Generally speaking, we are adopting

the same system: an assignment of blame. It used to be that two

adjusters would get together and divide the blame. We are, in

essence, doing the same thing. There is the odd case where

there is a substantial delay.

There is delay also where a second driver involved in an

accident doesn't report the accident. As a result, you've only

got one side of the story. But the instructions are that, where

it is obvious the individual is not to blame, his claim is

settled even though the other person has not yet reported the

accident.

I appreciate that there are some delays in certain areas. We

are working to overcome those delays.

MR. MORRISON: It was really the deductible I was referring

to. Of course, the same thing applies in the case of a

hit-and-run. Then, of course, he is stuck for the deductible

portion, at least, of his own insurance. There is no way he can

collect that back if he doesn't know who hit him. Under the

former system at least the individual was able to collect the

full amount on a hit-and-run.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not sure that he could under the

former set-up. It would depend where he had to go to get the

compensation.

MR. GARDOM: Are you prepared to tell us how many employees

there are in ICBC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are 1,250, plus 138 temporary, for

a total of 1,390.

MR. GARDOM: Is the Minister able to tell us what the average

salary is?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I'm afraid I haven't got that

figure.

MR. GARDOM: I have a few questions for the Hon. Minister.

First of all, I would like to make an observation and a

question to the Minister dealing with this windfall figure that

I gather he was speaking about at noon. My information is that

he used a figure of $40 million. If that is an incorrect

figure, the Minister could perhaps inform the House.

This $40 million which is going to make its way

[ Page 3665 ]

into the Insurance Corporation of B.C. is not reducing but

is subsidizing insurance premiums. If we happen to find — which

is obviously the case…. "Happen to find" is certainly not

correctly stating it. It is a fact today in B.C. that the

premium structure of ICBC is completely out of whack. The

government has had to find a $40-million subsidy in order to

meet operating costs and lost claim costs projected over this

coming fiscal period. That $40 million is obviously tantamount…. Is that the correct figure he used?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, can I correct…?

MR. GARDOM: Surely.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What I was doing was making a comparison

of the windfall figure of Alberta, which was $900-odd million

per year; the Saskatchewan figure which is about one-third of

Alberta's; and ours, which was — I don't know the exact figure — somewhere around $40 million. At no time did I say that

that is the figure going into ICBC.

MR. GARDOM: No, but this was the estimated figure you gave

today. That is correct. You estimated that $40 million is going

to be used to subsidize insurance premiums.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I did not use that figure in that

category.

MR. GARDOM: You said that $40 million is your estimate of

the amount of money that is going to go into Autoplan. Do you

agree with that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I don't agree with that.

MR. GARDOM: What is the $40 million, then?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I told you that I was making a speech and

I was comparing the windfall profits that had arisen in two provinces

from the agreement that was made in Ottawa. At no time did I say that

$40 million was going into ICBC.

MR. GARDOM: All right. Then you are estimating a $40-million

windfall, right? You're not telling the House how much of that

you are planning to plug into ICBC. You're keeping that under

wraps.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It is completely unrelated to that

figure. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: That is a bit funny.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Okay. You go off on your tangent. Go

ahead.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm not going off on a tangent. But that

money, Mr. Minister, announced by the Premier on Saturday or

when have you, is coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. It

should be utilized for roads, not for subsidizing Autoplan.

Make no mistake of that. Subsidy, once started, never ends. You

are creating an accounting maze and a policy maze. I would say

also the single, solitary purpose of being able to use this

thing is a political vehicle. Make no mistake of that fact.

Mr. Minister, you have still not responded to some seven

questions of mine dealing with the dollar situation of the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The panic button has

certainly been pressed by the Premier. You knew it was going to

come, but you didn't level with the House about that last week.

You knew it was going to come. The panic button has been

pressed by the Premier.

It is obvious to everybody in the Province of British

Columbia that ICBC is in the glue unless it receives this

subsidy. That's all there is to it. It was forecast by Members

on this side of the House that that was exactly the way the

thing was going to be used. So it comes as no surprise to us. I

indeed hope that it doesn't come as a surprise to the general

public.

Mr. Minister, the public in B.C. are, in my view, totally

entitled to answers to the questions that we put to you last

week. You can get involved in personal invective if you wish

to; you can attempt to intimidate the Members of the opposition

if you want to do that too. But we have a responsibility here,

and we have the right to ask these questions. You've got the

duty, in my mind, to answer them. I think that it is, without

any question of a doubt, an abdication of your responsibility

and your duty as a Minister of the Crown to refuse to level — just one

word, "level" — with the people of B.C. and tell them

what the financial situation in ICBC is.

In your annual report, in your financial statement, this

white document which you read and which has been quoted in this

House, you are prepared in that to go ahead and give figures of

estimated premium income. You give figures of expenditures. But

you come to a solid stop at that point. The people in B.C. want

to know and wish to have answers about dollars. They want to

know where the next subsidy is going to come from and how much

it is going to cost.

In order for people to do that, you have got to furnish them

with what your salary costs are. I've asked you that question.

Today you inform us that there are 1,390 employees. What is the

salary cost? Every month that statement is available, Mr.

Minister, and probably every two weeks. The Insurance

Corporation of B.C. will not tell the general public,

[ Page 3666 ]

and I don't know why.

You can go ahead and laugh and joke, Mr. Minister. It's a

great big joke to you fellows. This is an enormous corporation.

Don't you think the people are entitled to that information?

I've asked you, Mr. Minister, how many dollars are involved in

projections for claim costs. I've asked you, Mr. Minister, what

the monthly costs are for administering ICBC. Are they coming

in at the 12 per cent off premium, roughly like Manitoba, or is

it more than that?

I worked out figures, utilizing your own statement 100 per

cent. All I did was project your statement for a 12-month

period. It came up with a $10 million loss. That is a factual

loss on the projections of your figures. Make no mistake of

that. In my view it is likely to be considerably higher.

Just for fun, I'll do a bit of quick arithmetic here because

you just gave me the figure. You have 1,390 employees. Let's

assume an average salary of $10,000.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You assume what you like.

MR. GARDOM: Well, you're not giving any figures; we have to

make these assumptions. If you want to be snide and sit in your

seat and make silly cracks across the floor of the House, go

ahead and do it. What I would prefer you to do is to just give

us the information you have. That's what you should do.

There are 1,390 employees. Assuming the average salary

would be $10,000, which is a ballpark figure there, we get

$13.9 million for salary cost. Assuredly, Mr. Minister, a

ballpark figure for overhead expense would be 50 per cent of

salary cost, so just in order to use round figures, let me call

that first one $14 million for salary costs, while a ballpark

figure for overhead expense would be $7 million. That gives us

$21 million.

Now, you are paying 10 per cent commissions on your premiums,

and you estimate a total premium revenue of $179 million. So

for, again, round figure purposes, that would be $18 million for

commissions over the period. Now take those three figures — salary, $14 million, overhead, $7 million, commission expense,

$18 million — and add t